Stoker

By Chlotrudis Independent Film Society
Rating: 4.4
Director: Chan-wook Park
Starring: David Alford | Laruen E. Roman | Matthew Goode | Mia Wasikowska | Nicole Kidman | Peg Allen

Country: united_kingdom, united_states

Year: 2013

Running time: 99

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1682180/combined

Jason says: “With any luck, a fair number of the people seeing STOKER will do so without already being fans of director Park Chan-wook, drawn in by the nifty cast and striking previews. They’re in for a treat, because Park has crossed the Pacific without losing any of what made him a big deal in South Korea, which means that not only is this movie a chilly thrill unlike most anything else in theaters right now, but there’s half a dozen other good to great movies like it for them to discover.

“India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska) lost her father on her eighteenth birthday, and being a somewhat odd girl to begin with, the funeral is a special kind of torture, especially since it seems to highlight the differences in temperament between her and her mother Evelyn (Nicole Kidman). As strange as the whole thing seems, the arrival of her uncle Charlie (Matthew Goode) makes it even more unsettling: For as much as Evelyn quickly hooks onto him as a younger, more attentive version of the husband from whom she drifted apart, nobody ever told India about him, and neither longtime housekeeper Mrs. McGarrick (Phyllis Somerville) nor great-aunt Gwendylon (Jacki Weaver) seems particularly happy to see him return from his travels.

“Much of the first act of STOKER takes place at the large family home and its grounds, and what Park and his cohorts do with that location is kind of clever: It feels expensive and tony and until someone mentions their cellular telephone, it could be any time within the past fifty years there, with some things like India’s wardrobe and the live-in help almost seeming deliberately anachronistic. Park and his design team (who really should be remembered next awards season) create a perfect, spotless upper-class New England environment – even tubs of ice cream have an idealized look to them – before visually pointing out that there are dark passages underneath or showing India in a normal public school and letting the audience chew on that juxtaposition.

“The casting at times almost seems like part of the design work at times. Nicole Kidman is spot-on as the posh Evelyn, displaying the impatience and disdain in the most polite way possible, occasionally icy but with a weird innocence to her. Matthew Goode makes Charlie creepy by just standing there, and there’s a fun self-awareness to how he delivers his lines – not so much that he’s read the script, but that Charlie knows what he is and knows how to quietly leverage that depending on how aware the person he’s talking to is. It’s just the right blend of obvious and hidden weirdness, skewed just enough to match Park’s heightened environment. It’s a perfect opposite to Mia Wasikowska, whose India is plainly eccentric from the start, even if the reasons why aren’t quite obvious. There’s toughness and timidity at war within her.

“And though we don’t see him clearly until flashbacks toward the end, Dermot Mulroney is quite impressive as the late Richard Stoker – Park and writer Wentworth Miller have laid out hints of who and what Richard needed to be, and Mulroney not only hits that on the head, he quickly lets the audience see the character as an individual rather than a plot necessity. For a movie that necessarily reveals its secrets very slowly, it does a good job of not testing the audience’s patience, even when playing with ambiguities and unreliable ‘narrators.’

“Park also brings a lot of style to the movie along with obsessive design sense. Chung Chung-hoon, who has been shooting Park’s movies since Oldboy, joins him, and they capture a beautiful film, with colors alternately lush and chilly. The camera zips around eagerly, but not frantically, sometimes in a way that leads the viewer to expect one trick only to be thrown when it doesn’t happen. Characters disappear and reappear like ghosts, keeping the audience constantly aware of what’s just out of view.

“STOKER is seldom conventional; it’s always a little bit creepier, bigger, and slicker than it might be. It’s perfect material for Park, but like a lot of his movies, it’s not for everyone. For his fans – and those who may soon become such – that’s a very good thing indeed. 4.5 cats

“Seen 28 February 2013 in the Brattle Theatre (preview, 35mm)”

 

Peter says: “I saw STOKER this afternoon at Kendall Square after reading Jay’s review this morning. It’s a murder thriller imbued with visuals and images that get imprinted on the viewer’s psyche. Its style and slick direction are memorable long after details of the plot take back burner, and any storyline implausibilities seem inconsequential. I thoroughly enjoyed the craftsmanship of this film, and Park CHan-wook deserves a to take a bow. 4.5 cats

 

Chris says: “With its heightened sound design, abundant cross-cutting between disparate scenes and clever opening titles, the first American film from South Korean director Park Chan-wook (OLDBOY) is so heavily stylized some will find it instantly off-putting. Others might consider the film’s nasty, twisted gothic horror take on Hitchcock’s SHADOW OF A DOUBT a bit repellent. If STOKER was just one or the other of these things, I wouldn’t have much use for it, but together they make for a cool, involving thriller evocative of vintage Brian De Palma and other ‘70s art/trash cinema far too obscure for me to identify by name.

“The less one knows about the story, the better as it slowly, thoroughly builds up to a delirious but (mostly) plausible twist. As protagonist India Stoker, Mia Wasikowska uncovers another new facet of her ever-expanding range: the sullen, creepy, inward-projecting teen who can strike daggers with a sudden facial expression. Nicole Kidman is suitably vampy and vulnerable as Evelyn, her wealthy, recently widowed mother, while Matthew Goode is mannequin-perfect as Uncle Charlie, his existence unbeknownst to India or Evelyn before he shows up at his brother’s funeral.

“Although it contains a fair amount of violence and blood (there’s very little gore if you want to make that distinction), just as much of STOKER gleans its thrills from psychological horror, cementing the film’s Hitchcock connection/infatuation. Occasionally it’s all a little silly and cliché-ridden (of course there’s something unsavory and hidden in the basement for Nina to find!) but Park is a master of the genre: one late scene carries the same chilling, stop-on-a-dime mental shock of the ‘all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy’ moment in THE SHINING. Suspenseful terror of that caliber is hard to pull off. 4 cats”

Hilary responds: “Remove ‘occasionally’ and put a period after ‘cliché-ridden’ and that’s my take.

“Terribly heavy-handed and really dragged for me.”

 

Toni says:  “I do think they should have listed SHADOW OF A DOUBT officially as a reference officially in the credits.  I actually just watched it a few weeks later after seeing STOKER.

“They are definitely much different films but there’s much to compare.  It is wild to think Thornton Wilder wrote SHADOW OF A DOUBT which over STOKER has more of a small town feel as its backdrop and the certainly some variations in plot points; one is more mysterious and the other (STOKER) is more in your face visually.

“I think if you see STOKER it fun to watch SHADOW OF A DOUBT after seeing it; rent the DVD with the making of as well.  I loved SHADOW OF A DOUBT and really liked STOKER.”

 

Julie says:  “Will have to check SHADOW OF A DOUBT.  I liked STOKER a lot – great great acting from all, I was highly impressed by the cast.  Sound design and cross cutting of scenes, slow motion stuff, all good.  I didn’t know the background of the director or how it’s a take on SHADOW OF A DOUBT. I just liked it – cliches and all.

“The only thing that didn’t work for me were those whorish shoes. Way too high!  Nuf said. 4.75 cats”

Thom responds:  “I loved both films and I felt that it had a great shot at my #1 film for the year until I saw BLUE JASMINE. I highly admire Nicole Kidman. who could just as easily have gone on to make Hollywood ‘A’ list material with her Oscar but she continually chooses offbeat projects, some which admittedly don’t work, but they’re always fascinating, and STOKER is great. Loved the comparison to SHADOW OF A DOUBT. ”